The final word on DPR, feats and class balance

[Tony Vargas]

we will have fun the right way!

There is no right way to have fun...

...but there are oh-so-many wrong ways...

 

[5ekyu]

"Human nature's funny, that way. The accepted way to do something can be just terrible "

As a direct response to an observation about how many people run games all the time in spite of other people gripes about the game, this paeticular response is illuminating.

 

[Warpiglet]

There is no right way to have fun...

...but there are oh-so-many wrong ways...

Those sound mutually exclusive. Isn't that interesting?

I genuinely disliked 4e. Does that mean that was the wrong way to have fun? Many would disagree. Or 8 people...but you get the point.

The tenor of the OP is saying this 5e is so lopsided as to be "not fun." I disagree on the "not fun" portion.

It seems to be a value statement. I don't like the metric. I am OK with Bob the champion being able to do more damage than Waldo. Waldo can do disguise self and silent image. I would argue Waldo might do more in some sessions than Bob. Then I read this thread and see that fo some people it comes down to symmetry in all facets of the game.

I reject the usefulness of comparing apples to watermelons to steaks.

 

[OB1]

For a perfectly balanced game, see tic-tac-toe. Two people who understand the game will always end with a tie. Perfectly balanced, and so no reason to play once you understand it.

 

[Bacon Bits]

I'd say that my experience is that -- with the significant exception of Agonizing Blast -- martial characters tend to be far more damaging than the casters even without feats. Sure, there's always big spells like fireball that have extremely high damage ceilings, but for the vast majority of the game there aren't very many of those each day and even when there are you can't use them all that often. I mean, sure, 8d6 is a lot of damage, but 2d6+5 is almost 4d6 damage, and 1d8+5 is almost 3d6 damage. Even when cantrips scale at +1 die and rarely get ability bonus to damage, they don't keep up because Extra Attack exists.

The only abilities that I've noticed which cause a problematic amount of damage are the -5/+10 feats for martial characters and Agonizing Blast for Warlocks. I'm not evaluating Draconic Sorcerer because nobody has played a Sorcerer yet (the spell list is too narrow... people pick either Wizard, Warlock or Bard). When I DM our group, I change Agonizing Blast to only deal it's bonus damage to one target, and I replace the -5/+10 abilities with other abilities.

 

[Seramus]

Wait. Final Word?
I'm going to hold you to this.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Those sound mutually exclusive. Isn't that interesting?

It's interesting that you'd think it sounds contradictory.

There's no right way to have fun, or, perhaps I should have said no one right way. You can follow, precisely, the way someone else had fun, and there's no guarantee it'll be fun for you. Fun's subjective, that way.

But there are many things one might find fun that are wrong in some way, or simply a bad idea. No matter how much fun amateur vivisection may be, for instance, it's wrong to mutilate your neighbor's cat.

The tenor of the OP is saying this 5e is so lopsided as to be "not fun." I disagree on the "not fun" portion.

So you disagree only with the subjective portion?

Fair nuff.

 

[Warpiglet]

It's interesting that you'd think it sounds contradictory.

There's no right way to have fun, or, perhaps I should have said no one right way. You can follow, precisely, the way someone else had fun, and there's no guarantee it'll be fun for you. Fun's subjective, that way.

But there are many things one might find fun that are wrong in some way, or simply a bad idea. No matter how much fun amateur vivisection may be, for instance, it's wrong to mutilate your neighbor's cat.

So you disagree only with the subjective portion?

Fair nuff.

I play the game to solve problems, make decisions, create characters/stories, experience drama/humor/excitement watch events unfold and to socialize.

None of these are predicated on perfect balance in all endeavors. I am fine with some feats classes and skills being better in particular ways.

 

[hawkeyefan]

If players always choose a character build focused solely around damage output and combat performance and little else, then I can see why some folks call for balance as a solution, despite balance having its own drawbacks that it would bring.

If feats are a problem, then don’t use them. Stop thinking of them as options and start thinking of them as Cheats. The ones that seem to be a problem are those that lack any kind of thematic meaning other than “I hit really hard with this weapon”. All they are is an excuse to add damage and make the player feel “more effective” in combat.

There is no challenge involved in this.

Tell your players that if they want to challenge themselves....if they want to see howgood they can play rather than how good a feat is at adding damage...then play without the feats. Take the training wheels off.

Then maybe over time your players will become the kinds of players who can see such options in a book and not feel the need to take them. They’ll have moved past this “damage is everything” mindset and have started spreading their focus a bit.

And then maybe as a result you can become the kind of DM who will realize that the game doesn’t need a drastic overhaul just to fix the very specific problem of one gaming group.

And then, perhaps at long last...it would indeed be the final word.

 

[Umbran]

Actually, as far as I remember, chess is unbalanced. White has an advantage over Black that -while meaningless at low skill games- clearly shows up at high -grandmaster high- ability levels where every single move counts.

It isn't that simple, and whether that advantage actually exists, or is mainly psychological, is debated. It is one of those "common knowledge" things that isn't actually proven, as chess is not yet a solved game.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-move_advantage_in_chess