D&D 5E Why Good Players Do Not 14.25.

[Sacrosanct]

Never claimed it the example I provided was 50%.

No, you said it was adding +10 damage per attack. And that's simply not remotely close to being true, because not every attack hits.

 

[Cyrinishad]

The main point that is trying to be made is that the D&D game is not designed as a competitive zero-sum tactical board game, it is designed as a cooperative survival story-driven game... The character with the highest damage output is not "better" than the other characters at the table, and isn't "winning" the game more than the other characters.

It's weird, it's almost like I never said it was.

Almost... Except you totally did say that, when you very specifically said:

Until the characters (not fighters, actually) took those feats, I was competitive. Now it's not a niche I need to fill, so I stopped filling it. I'm A-OK with them being way better than me (as I said!).

So, you literally said that you that you think the game is about being "competitive", and that the other character is doing more damage and is therefore doing "better" than you at the game. I'm not putting words in your mouth, I'm just trying to help you see that the amount of damage a player's character can do does not mean they are playing the game "better" than anyone else.

 

[bedir than]

I'm rather confused by any DM that sets up encounters for a late tier 2 or early tier 3 encounter using "the average" monster in the Monster Manual. Most DMs aren't idiots. They aren't going to do anything like this. The PCs in this group have powers. They shouldn't be facing at least a third of the MM by this time for anything other than story reasons.

The entire analysis is built on a falsehood that ignores encounter, adventure, campaign and game design.

 

[TwoSix]

Almost... Except you totally did say that, when you very specifically said:



So, you literally said that you that you think the game is about being "competitive", and that the other character is doing more damage and is therefore doing "better" than you at the game. I'm not putting words in your mouth, I'm just trying to help you see that the amount of damage a player's character can do does not mean they are playing the game "better" than anyone else.

Way better than me "at single-target damage". I would assume that's obvious from the subject we're talking about. Everything I was talking about was on the topic of single target damage.

Trying to judge characters based purely on damage is so obviously a fool's errand I don't why you would assume anyone would be thinking that.

 

[Zardnaar]

I'm rather confused by any DM that sets up encounters for a late tier 2 or early tier 3 encounter using "the average" monster in the Monster Manual. Most DMs aren't idiots. They aren't going to do anything like this. The PCs in this group have powers. They shouldn't be facing at least a third of the MM by this time for anything other than story reasons.

The entire analysis is built on a falsehood that ignores encounter, adventure, campaign and game design.

Its more of a guidline. Have a look in the WoTC adventures, the ACs for example are still fairly low.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Question I hope someone can help me with. One thing I've noticed (correct me if I'm wrong) is that optimizers like to play with other optimizers, for the most part. Which makes sense, because there's a synergy of playstyle there. So I assume the DMs for optimized groups are also favorable to the optimizer playstyle.

However...

I get the impression that DMs aren't allowed to follow the same rules that the players do. The DM is supposed to be limited to RAW only, and that doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Why can't humanoids wear better armor and weapons? Why can't a war like race such as orcs have solid tactics in battle, with a phalanx front line and back row with ranged weapons and pots of flaming oil? Why can't the ogre use its brute strength to grapple and restrain a PC while its goblin allies riddle it with attacks made at advantage?

If players like to look for the most mechanically optimized builds (which is fine), why can't the DM do the same? It seems to me that that would be the most ideal situation because it lets everyone who likes to play like that play like that (not just the players). It would also seem to eliminate a lot of these types of threads, where people seem to complain about how the game is broken based on the players optimizing and/or using loopholes while the DM is handcuffed.

 

[Istbor]

Does your group not get tired of taking just these feats? I do not see either of the 'broken' feats in play often, and I have yet to see them both in combination for a single character.

Now, I don't know if that simply speaks to the differences in the type of table we play at or the players themselves. I have been a power gamer and DMed for such people, but I have yet to DM for a group of power gamers that repeatedly take the same classes and feats over and over again as it seems in your case. Doesn't anyone tire of playing a Cleric so that Bless is gone? Or a (in my opinion) boring as all-get-out crossbow wielding fighter?

I am not saying it is wrong to play in such a way. You have just brought this up over and over, ad nauseam, and each time you bring an example of what I can only guess is a currently active group at your table. Trying to wrap my head around that.

Anyway, in response to some of your opinions and questions. I don't see the same issue as you do. If you feel as though the book and Adventure guides should be building and tweaking every detail of your monsters for you, I think you may be playing the wrong game. Changing things to best fit your table/campaign/rendition of an AP has been around for as long as D&D. I have never had a book in any version that did everything exactly as I wanted it. I don't expect to see that any time soon either.

 

[Cyrinishad]

We did but we had a DM use high ACs the majority of the encounters (hobgoblins, veterans, knights, monsters etc)...Sorcerers often deal more damage buffing the GWM and SS fighters/warrior types than casting actual spells. Twin a haste or greater invisibility (or even untwinned).

Ah, I see. I'm sorry to hear that your DM experimented with a cure that was worse than the disease. I have certainly had similar missteps as a DM, and it took a lot of practice, but as with everything in life moderation is the key. Like I said in my previous post, that kind of an adjustment should be used some of the time, not the majority of the time. I have found that it is very important for the choices players make when building their characters to feel powerful and useful. If those choices aren't effective or don't have a meaningful impact on the story, then that undermines the entire point of building a character. However, it is incumbent upon the DM to provide a wide variety of challenges that make a character's default strategies sub-optimal, and require players to adapt to circumstances. If the DM does not do that, it undermines the entire point of choices in customizing a character, and ultimately results in the illusion of choices surrounding a single optimal/effective character design.

Your comment about Sorcerers continues to reflect your presumption that the amount of damage a character does is somehow the defining metric of the game. I am trying to help you realize that damage output is not analogous to character efficacy.

 

[Cyrinishad]

Question I hope someone can help me with. One thing I've noticed (correct me if I'm wrong) is that optimizers like to play with other optimizers, for the most part. Which makes sense, because there's a synergy of playstyle there. So I assume the DMs for optimized groups are also favorable to the optimizer playstyle.

However...

I get the impression that DMs aren't allowed to follow the same rules that the players do. The DM is supposed to be limited to RAW only, and that doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Why can't humanoids wear better armor and weapons? Why can't a war like race such as orcs have solid tactics in battle, with a phalanx front line and back row with ranged weapons and pots of flaming oil? Why can't the ogre use its brute strength to grapple and restrain a PC while its goblin allies riddle it with attacks made at advantage?

If players like to look for the most mechanically optimized builds (which is fine), why can't the DM do the same? It seems to me that that would be the most ideal situation because it lets everyone who likes to play like that play like that (not just the players). It would also seem to eliminate a lot of these types of threads, where people seem to complain about how the game is broken based on the players optimizing and/or using loopholes while the DM is handcuffed.

This speaks directly to the creation of believable, interactive game world, where players choices matter... creativity is necessary & rewarded... A game world that is populated by NPCs/Monsters that have appropriate survival instincts, are ready, willing, and able to adapt to changing circumstances... just as the PCs are expected to do...

Some of my players are very much optimizers, and enjoy the crunch of combat mechanics... But they also like being surprised, challenged, and immersed by the game world. So, I feel like I would be doing them a disservice if I only ran encounters that were Stat-Blocks out of the Monster Manual. When they run into encounters where the villains have clearly adapted to their tactics they get that look in their of satisfaction that their character has made a meaningful impact on the game world... That's when they feel like they've "won" the game.

 

[Cyrinishad]

Way better than me "at single-target damage". I would assume that's obvious from the subject we're talking about. Everything I was talking about was on the topic of single target damage.

Trying to judge characters based purely on damage is so obviously a fool's errand I don't why you would assume anyone would be thinking that.

Ok, I'm sorry that I misunderstood what you were trying to say. Thanks for helping me to understand your thought process more clearly.