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 LIVE! 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="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 7437016" data-attributes="member: 996"><p>Considered and discarded, is the impression I get. Sure, he could just not use feats, but his players want the options, he wants the options out there, /and/ he feels that the feats are needed to balance the fighter with other classes - so the feats stay, and the problem of them imbalancing certain weapon-using builds remains to be solved <em>in some other way...</em></p><p></p><p> IDK, the design stays flawed even if some 3rd party comes up with a 'fix.' Pointless, in the environment of 5e, probably, but not paradoxical.</p><p></p><p> This I do find a little paradoxical. If you never encounter a problem because you never had occasion to encounter it, piping up doesn't make a lot of sense. I don't chime into discussion of violent crime in Chicago with the fact I've never been attacked in Chicago (leaving out the fact that I've never been anywhere near it), but I suppose some of the folks who jump on Zapp's thread /would/... </p><p></p><p> That's a bad sentence, even by my standards. Sorry. ;( </p><p></p><p>However people put it when they take a shot at Zapp's observations about the game, they seem to be pushing back against the very idea of it being changed. Which is both unnecessary (the current design/marketing philosophy has little room for errata or incremental improvement of any kind), and, IDK, kinda petty. </p><p></p><p> It's not "beholden to DPR," it's "High enough DPR can make up for lack of versatility." Zapp's thesis, and it's fairly conventional, is that the fighter lacks versatility, but it's combat (mainly DPR) potential makes up for that. Pushing back that he shouldn't focus on DPR is at best non-responsive. </p><p></p><p> I'd think so, but the point isn't do you 'need' it, the point is it /does/ support an archetype, and it's something a player would intuitively take even if he wasn't powergaming and the campaign didn't 'over value' DPR. In fact, in that case, it might even turn out to be more disruptive to the campaign, since it probably means it's not running at a high level of optimization...</p><p></p><p> Obviously, they each do something other than -5/+10, and they have appeal to concept-driven folks, too. Should my Robin Hood type be a "Sharpshooter?" I don't even have to look it up, he's supposed to be splitting arrows, /of course/! You can't dismiss game elements as having no other purpose than to appeal to pathological play styles just because they do appeal to pathological playstyles. (Heck, you could dismiss the whole game that way!)</p><p>It's not some sort of B&W morality. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite2" alt=";)" title="Wink ;)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=";)" /></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 7437016, member: 996"] Considered and discarded, is the impression I get. Sure, he could just not use feats, but his players want the options, he wants the options out there, /and/ he feels that the feats are needed to balance the fighter with other classes - so the feats stay, and the problem of them imbalancing certain weapon-using builds remains to be solved [i]in some other way...[/i] IDK, the design stays flawed even if some 3rd party comes up with a 'fix.' Pointless, in the environment of 5e, probably, but not paradoxical. This I do find a little paradoxical. If you never encounter a problem because you never had occasion to encounter it, piping up doesn't make a lot of sense. I don't chime into discussion of violent crime in Chicago with the fact I've never been attacked in Chicago (leaving out the fact that I've never been anywhere near it), but I suppose some of the folks who jump on Zapp's thread /would/... That's a bad sentence, even by my standards. Sorry. ;( However people put it when they take a shot at Zapp's observations about the game, they seem to be pushing back against the very idea of it being changed. Which is both unnecessary (the current design/marketing philosophy has little room for errata or incremental improvement of any kind), and, IDK, kinda petty. It's not "beholden to DPR," it's "High enough DPR can make up for lack of versatility." Zapp's thesis, and it's fairly conventional, is that the fighter lacks versatility, but it's combat (mainly DPR) potential makes up for that. Pushing back that he shouldn't focus on DPR is at best non-responsive. I'd think so, but the point isn't do you 'need' it, the point is it /does/ support an archetype, and it's something a player would intuitively take even if he wasn't powergaming and the campaign didn't 'over value' DPR. In fact, in that case, it might even turn out to be more disruptive to the campaign, since it probably means it's not running at a high level of optimization... Obviously, they each do something other than -5/+10, and they have appeal to concept-driven folks, too. Should my Robin Hood type be a "Sharpshooter?" I don't even have to look it up, he's supposed to be splitting arrows, /of course/! You can't dismiss game elements as having no other purpose than to appeal to pathological play styles just because they do appeal to pathological playstyles. (Heck, you could dismiss the whole game that way!) It's not some sort of B&W morality. ;) [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
The final word on DPR, feats and class balance
Top