Zardnaar
Legend
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.
I know but if you do want to deal a lot of damage those feats enable it.
Right now we don;t have the most ideal damage dealing party.
Light Cleric
Shadowdancer Monk
Dex Based Sword and Board battlemaster fighter
Mastermind Rogue
And then a 5th turned up.
Hunter Ranger/sharpshooter. Even without the Ranger they were dealing enough damage to get by and having fun with it. Battlemaster fighter+ ranger and rogue helps a lot though.
Not many people take wizards for whatever reason in this group, Sorcerers, Bards and Warlocks see more play in previous games.