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

[GMforPowergamers]

when I was just learning to RPG about 20 years ago, my friend who introed me to D&D had played with his uncle when he was a kid years earlier. His uncle had a story about at a con (although I can't remember wich) where people would compare damage on throwing darts as a specialized fighter compaired to having the wizard fireball... I don't remember all the specfics, but even in 1e and 2e people did it, long before WOW...

 

[iserith]

The rules aren't in charge of how much combat, exploration, and social interaction there is in a given game.

The DM and players are.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Dominating an entire combat sounds like a little bit more than competency.

And I think it's telling that the barbarian, which I think is generally seen to be a class that's among the best at combat and not terribly good at most other things, gets to dominate in the combats when the wizard thinks it's not important enough to. I bet that makes them feel like they're making a really significant contribution, getting to handle the jobs that are beneath the attention of Mr Wizard.

Or when they're, you know, fighting a Rakshasa. Because the wizard is almost entirely helpless in that situation.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

when I was just learning to RPG about 20 years ago, my friend who introed me to D&D had played with his uncle when he was a kid years earlier. His uncle had a story about at a con (although I can't remember wich) where people would compare damage on throwing darts as a specialized fighter compaired to having the wizard fireball... I don't remember all the specfics, but even in 1e and 2e people did it, long before WOW...

The way this worked was that you take someone with 18/00 Strength or higher, and then specialize them in darts to get 6 attacks per round at high level. Since 18/00 Strength grants +6 to damage and darts are 1d3 IIRC, you can do up to 6*8=48 points of damage per turn, for free, whereas the wizard gets only 10d6 = 35 (save for half) at the cost of a third-level spell.

Not a big deal either way IMHO. It's mostly interesting as a counterintuitive example of Dartmaster fighters out-damaging regular longsword-wielding ones, not for any comparison to wizards.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

The way this worked was that you take someone with 18/00 Strength or higher, and then specialize them in darts to get 6 attacks per round at high level. Since 18/00 Strength grants +6 to damage and darts are 1d3 IIRC, you can do up to 6*8=48 points of damage per turn, for free, whereas the wizard gets only 10d6 = 35 (save for half) at the cost of a third-level spell.

Not a big deal either way IMHO. It's mostly interesting as a counterintuitive example of Dartmaster fighters out-damaging regular longsword-wielding ones, not for any comparison to wizards.

ok... that might be it, I think if you go with getting an 18/00 that's a lot, but getting a +2 str bonus to damage (I don't remember w
hat score that would be) then +2 spec bonus is already +4 and that's even with 4 attacks is 1d3+4 x4 or 20-28 damage... so already pretty counter intuitive...

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

ok... that might be it, I think if you go with getting an 18/00 that's a lot, but getting a +2 str bonus to damage (I don't remember w
hat score that would be) then +2 spec bonus is already +4 and that's even with 4 attacks is 1d3+4 x4 or 20-28 damage... so already pretty counter intuitive...

You don't get a damage bonus for specializing in a missile weapon, you get extra attacks instead. You have the choice between doing 1d8(1d12 against large creatures) + 8 damage with 5 attacks every 2 rounds using a longsword = 36.25 DPR (times your to-hit chance) against large creatures, or 1d3+6 with 6 attacks per round = 48 DPR (times your to-hit chance). But longswords are cooler and don't require ammunition, and melee combat was more important than it is in 5E.

 

[Remathilis]

Dominating an entire combat sounds like a little bit more than competency.

And I think it's telling that the barbarian, which I think is generally seen to be a class that's among the best at combat and not terribly good at most other things, gets to dominate in the combats when the wizard thinks it's not important enough to. I bet that makes them feel like they're making a really significant contribution, getting to handle the jobs that are beneath the attention of Mr Wizard.

One combat. I got lucky, got init, and rolled high on the HP affected. If the goblins were a.) Spread out or b.) I rolled poor, things would be very different.

Next fight, BTW, was against an ogre. Too many HP to sleep, so I went magic missile for 10 damage. The half orc barbarian then critted with his greatsword for nearly 30. He proceeded to do 7-17 per hit, I did 1-8 with Ray of frost. Yeah, he dominated that fight, so karma worked out.

 

[Jester David]

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?

D&D is a game.
People like to win games.
Building the best character is the best empirical way of "winning" at D&D.
Simple as that.

 

[Mishihari Lord]

when I was just learning to RPG about 20 years ago, my friend who introed me to D&D had played with his uncle when he was a kid years earlier. His uncle had a story about at a con (although I can't remember wich) where people would compare damage on throwing darts as a specialized fighter compaired to having the wizard fireball... I don't remember all the specfics, but even in 1e and 2e people did it, long before WOW...

I've been playing and involved in RPGs since 1980, and while people did talk about damage comparisons back in the day, there was nothing like the current obsession with DPS in RPGs. Since, based on my admittedly limited circle or gaming friends and acquaintances, it didn't come from us old school gamers, it must have come from the WoW generation.

 

[DaveDash]

Some people like to play damage dealing classes. When they pick one and find out later that they're not performing compared to some other damage dealing classes, they're going to be unhappy. Especially if they've invested months of time into this character.