That was the problem, yes.
I'm not convinced overkill is a meaningful concept in the first place.
That was the problem, yes.
I'm not convinced overkill is a meaningful concept in the first place.
Overkilled is still killed and exactly-killed is a coincidence.
It was considering two beatsticks beating down their hp pinatas at the same rate to be doing so at different rates that sounded squirelly.
I let myself forget just how squirelly D&D hps can get.
It /seems/ significant in the kinds of simplified scenarios DPR calculations represent, because you can have things like hypothetical Big BeatStick doing exactly twice as much damage as the hypothetical little beatstick that attacks twice as often, for exactly the same damage, and who each always attack enemies in isolation.
You're not the only guy here Frog. And it's pretty obvious that opinion in the thread is informed by a much wider ranger of opinion and examples than just the one you started with. Don't fret sir, if I wanted to ask you a direct question, silly or otherwise, I would have.
My son seemed to be able to accidentally optimize a Paladin for his first character enough to defeat enemies which were designed for a full party several levels higher by himself ... which either defeats the fun of optimizing or just seems mildly like they reduced the character balance significantly from 4e. (or designed for a full party 3 levels higher doesn't mean the same thing when you can supernova trivially).
You can trust it as far as you can mod it.
I know you're indirectly advocating for game balance - though the resolution of the edition war has demonstrated it to be anathema in the context of D&D - but 5e also curbs system mastery, by subordinating the system to the DM, you can't acquire your rewards for mastering the RaW when there is no established RaW, only each DMs interpretations & rulings - and, even then, they can be overridden case by case.
