Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
The final word on DPR, feats and class balance
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 7436511" data-attributes="member: 42582"><p>A number of posters have pointed out ways in which spell casters can contribute to the game otherwise than by dealing damage. That is true - in fact, I would have thought it is quite uncontroversial (even if someone thinks damage is <em>better</em>, still it's obvious that charming a bandit king contributes to the game).</p><p></p><p>But that doesn't respond at all to the OP's concerns that fighters and other damage-dealer types get crowded out in a non-feat game by sorcerers, and in a feat game get channelled into a handful of optimal builds (optimal because of the feat support).</p><p></p><p>This seems to miss the points that, at least for me, were the heart of the OP.</p><p></p><p>You are correct that, if a player doesn't care about damage, then the fact that a two-handed sword is better than knife-fighting is neither here nor there. But the player who <em>does</em> care about damage can't easily realise that goal playing a knife-fighter. This is the OP's "Problem #2".</p><p></p><p>The "further flaw" that the OP identifies is that, even if we put feats to one side, the knife fighter is in serious danger of being eclipsed by the warlock or sorcerer, who can do the same sort of ranged damage as a knife fighter, or even better, while also having the flexibility benefits of being a D&D spell caster.</p><p></p><p>It seems to me that there are two main responses to these points (other than agreeing, as eg [MENTION=205]TwoSix[/MENTION] seems to). One is to dispute their mechanical foundations eg to show that, in fact, the rules support a knife fighter whose mechanical effectiveness is comparable to a greatsword wielder, a warlock, a sorcerer, etc. I don't think anyone in this thread has tried this in a serious fashion. (I feel that showing that the sorcerer has enough spell points for "only" 5 or 6 powered-up encounters is proving the OP's point rather than refuting it!)</p><p></p><p>The other is to show that <em>it shouldn't matter to the player of the knife fighter</em>, who <em>wants to do meaningful amounts of damage<em>, that his/her typical expected damage is less than that of other fairly standard builds.</em></em></p><p><em><em></em></em></p><p><em><em>I don't think this second response is hopeless, but I think it needs to be tackled head-on. Simply telling that player that s/he's wrong to want to do meaningful amounts of damage doesn't count. [MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION] is coming closest, I think (with his empasis on "GM empowerment").</em></em></p><p><em><em></em></em></p><p><em><em>As someone who is mostly a spectator in this thread, I'm finding the failure to fully engage with the OP's claims a bit frustrating, as the second response in particular has the prospect of being quite interesting in bringing out some deep considerations in RPG play and RPG design.</em></em></p><p><em><em></em></em></p><p><em><em>EDIT: I wrote the above before reading [MENTION=23716]Gadget[/MENTION]'s post. I read that post as making a point at least somewhat similar to mine.</em></em></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 7436511, member: 42582"] A number of posters have pointed out ways in which spell casters can contribute to the game otherwise than by dealing damage. That is true - in fact, I would have thought it is quite uncontroversial (even if someone thinks damage is [i]better[/i], still it's obvious that charming a bandit king contributes to the game). But that doesn't respond at all to the OP's concerns that fighters and other damage-dealer types get crowded out in a non-feat game by sorcerers, and in a feat game get channelled into a handful of optimal builds (optimal because of the feat support). This seems to miss the points that, at least for me, were the heart of the OP. You are correct that, if a player doesn't care about damage, then the fact that a two-handed sword is better than knife-fighting is neither here nor there. But the player who [i]does[/i] care about damage can't easily realise that goal playing a knife-fighter. This is the OP's "Problem #2". The "further flaw" that the OP identifies is that, even if we put feats to one side, the knife fighter is in serious danger of being eclipsed by the warlock or sorcerer, who can do the same sort of ranged damage as a knife fighter, or even better, while also having the flexibility benefits of being a D&D spell caster. It seems to me that there are two main responses to these points (other than agreeing, as eg [MENTION=205]TwoSix[/MENTION] seems to). One is to dispute their mechanical foundations eg to show that, in fact, the rules support a knife fighter whose mechanical effectiveness is comparable to a greatsword wielder, a warlock, a sorcerer, etc. I don't think anyone in this thread has tried this in a serious fashion. (I feel that showing that the sorcerer has enough spell points for "only" 5 or 6 powered-up encounters is proving the OP's point rather than refuting it!) The other is to show that [i]it shouldn't matter to the player of the knife fighter[/i], who [i]wants to do meaningful amounts of damage[i], that his/her typical expected damage is less than that of other fairly standard builds. I don't think this second response is hopeless, but I think it needs to be tackled head-on. Simply telling that player that s/he's wrong to want to do meaningful amounts of damage doesn't count. [MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION] is coming closest, I think (with his empasis on "GM empowerment"). As someone who is mostly a spectator in this thread, I'm finding the failure to fully engage with the OP's claims a bit frustrating, as the second response in particular has the prospect of being quite interesting in bringing out some deep considerations in RPG play and RPG design. EDIT: I wrote the above before reading [MENTION=23716]Gadget[/MENTION]'s post. I read that post as making a point at least somewhat similar to mine.[/i][/i] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
The final word on DPR, feats and class balance
Top