D&D 5E "My X is underpowered compared to Y." So?

[spongebob1138]

I'm reading so very often people complaining that their Sorcerer/Monk/Ranger whoever doesn't do as much damage as some other class, and I'm wondering why some of us assume that all characters should deal damage equally. My understanding of the game is that different classes have strengths and weaknesses, and that the litmus test is whether or not my character has a chance to shine, not whether or not I can do 80 points of damage (which is one of many ways to shine). During a combat, for example, when the ranger uses Ensnaring Stike and impedes/hems in opponents, that's an impact that is not necessarily measured in damage. Or when a spellcaster casts a buff or healing spell. You get the idea.

I'm not saying there aren't issues where things just don't make logical sense and limit your character (I'm looking at you, Ranger's Companion). But why is damage output so often the be all and end all? It's only a third of the game (the others being exploration and social interaction).

Perhaps this is just because of differing styles of play/campaigns. It makes sense to me that if a gaming group focuses on combat, a player whose character doesn't do as much damage is going to feel sub-par. But in a balanced game, I would think that the PC's who have strengths other than dealing damage have their chance to shape the game, too.

Disclaimer: I am newly reacquainted to D&D (haven't played since 2nd Edition). Am I feeling this way because I haven't lived through 4th Edition and it's emphasis on combat? Thoughts?

 

[Greg Benage]

People focus on damage (on the internet, at least) because it's the easiest character capability to quantify.

 

[iserith]

I'm reading so very often people complaining that their Sorcerer/Monk/Ranger whoever doesn't do as much damage as some other class, and I'm wondering why some of us assume that all characters should deal damage equally. My understanding of the game is that different classes have strengths and weaknesses, and that the litmus test is whether or not my character has a chance to shine, not whether or not I can do 80 points of damage (which is one of many ways to shine). During a combat, for example, when the ranger uses Ensnaring Stike and impedes/hems in opponents, that's an impact that is not necessarily measured in damage. Or when a spellcaster casts a buff or healing spell. You get the idea.

I'm not saying there aren't issues where things just don't make logical sense and limit your character (I'm looking at you, Ranger's Companion). But why is damage output so often the be all and end all? It's only a third of the game (the others being exploration and social interaction).

Perhaps this is just because of differing styles of play/campaigns. It makes sense to me that if a gaming group focuses on combat, a player whose character doesn't do as much damage is going to feel sub-par. But in a balanced game, I would think that the PC's who have strengths other than dealing damage have their chance to shape the game, too.

Disclaimer: I am newly reacquainted to D&D (haven't played since 2nd Edition). Am I feeling this way because I haven't lived through 4th Edition and it's emphasis on combat? Thoughts?

Game balance in a roleplaying game matters only to the extent that it helps everyone share the spotlight. If the game is about more than combat simulation, the other pillars (i.e. exploration, social interaction) have to be taken into consideration to determine if a class (or whatever) is designed well enough to create an opportunity for each player to have his or her moment to shine. It is shortsighted in my view to take only DPR into account to make an assertion as to game balance - unless that person's particular game does in fact emphasize combat to the exclusion of the other pillars.

Different people have different kinds of fun, so it's important to view any such analysis through this lens.

 

[Chocolategravy]

People focus on damage (on the internet, at least) because it's the easiest character capability to quantify.

Damage is also the only thing many characters bring to combat so their only way to "shine."

 

[Celtavian]

People don't complain that clerics do less damage because they have other powerful abilities like healing.

A monk should do similar damage to other classes. He doesn't do a great deal else in the course of battle. He pretty much hits things. In a group game have fast you do damage is the only way to balance classes that bring nearly nothing else of substantial value to the table.

 

[SteveC]

I think people focus on combat, and how effective you can be in combat, because it is the linchpin for many games.

A lot of people play D&D to get to the combat, so if they're not feeling effective there, they get cranky.

This isn't helped by the fact that combat gets the most attention in the rules by far: we have exploration and social as other pillars for the game, but they aren't talked about in nearly the detail as combat.

It also doesn't help that many campaigns are just not that interesting outside of combat either.

So... if people are hyper-focused on combat, the solution is to make the game interesting in other areas.

 

[cmad1977]

I blame WoW(which I loved). Every class must be strictly 'balanced'. Which is inane to me. Classes may not be mathematically balanced in certain situations, but I would suggest that they are 'situationally' balanced. IE: sometimes the Barbarian is going to dominate, and sometimes it's the Wizard.

 

[houser2112]

I'm reading so very often people complaining that their Sorcerer/Monk/Ranger whoever doesn't do as much damage as some other class, and I'm wondering why some of us assume that all characters should deal damage equally. My understanding of the game is that different classes have strengths and weaknesses, and that the litmus test is whether or not my character has a chance to shine, not whether or not I can do 80 points of damage (which is one of many ways to shine).

The poster from the other thread that you seem to be referring to was complaining that his blaster sorc is ineffective at dealing damage, relative to a barbarian. I think it's fair to complain that a class that is forced to be tightly focused at what it can do (small number of known spells), and using a subclass specifically made for blasting, is ineffective at dealing damage.

 

[spongebob1138]

The poster from the other thread that you seem to be referring to was complaining that his blaster sorc is ineffective at dealing damage, relative to a barbarian. I think it's fair to complain that a class that is forced to be tightly focused at what it can do (small number of known spells), and using a subclass specifically made for blasting, is ineffective at dealing damage.

I honestly didn't have the thread you mention in mind; haven't read it. But I still think that comparing a sorcerer to a barbarian is odd. Even though a sorcerer seems to be a spellcaster who is more focused on offense, the class does have more to offer than just dealing damage, which is pretty much all a barbarian appears to be designed for. So I still think comparing the two is not entirely fair...

 

[Bluenose]

I blame WoW(which I loved). Every class must be strictly 'balanced'. Which is inane to me. Classes may not be mathematically balanced in certain situations, but I would suggest that they are 'situationally' balanced. IE: sometimes the Barbarian is going to dominate, and sometimes it's the Wizard.

Why should the Wizard ever dominate? Most of the other classes don't get to remake themselves based on what they need to be good at a particular day, or to decide that today they're going to be nearly as good as the Wizard at the areas the Wizard is 'supposed' to dominate. So why should a class which gets to be a Jack of All Trades also get to be a Master of One and a near-Master of a bunch of others?