Sacrosanct
Legend
Never claimed it the example I provided was 50%.
No, you said it was adding +10 damage per attack. And that's simply not remotely close to being true, because not every attack hits.
Never claimed it the example I provided was 50%.
The main point that is trying to be made is that the D&D game is not designed as a competitive zero-sum tactical board game, it is designed as a cooperative survival story-driven game... The character with the highest damage output is not "better" than the other characters at the table, and isn't "winning" the game more than the other characters.
It's weird, it's almost like I never said it was.
Until the characters (not fighters, actually) took those feats, I was competitive. Now it's not a niche I need to fill, so I stopped filling it. I'm A-OK with them being way better than me (as I said!).
Way better than me "at single-target damage". I would assume that's obvious from the subject we're talking about. Everything I was talking about was on the topic of single target damage.Almost... Except you totally did say that, when you very specifically said:
So, you literally said that you that you think the game is about being "competitive", and that the other character is doing more damage and is therefore doing "better" than you at the game. I'm not putting words in your mouth, I'm just trying to help you see that the amount of damage a player's character can do does not mean they are playing the game "better" than anyone else.
I'm rather confused by any DM that sets up encounters for a late tier 2 or early tier 3 encounter using "the average" monster in the Monster Manual. Most DMs aren't idiots. They aren't going to do anything like this. The PCs in this group have powers. They shouldn't be facing at least a third of the MM by this time for anything other than story reasons.
The entire analysis is built on a falsehood that ignores encounter, adventure, campaign and game design.
We did but we had a DM use high ACs the majority of the encounters (hobgoblins, veterans, knights, monsters etc)...Sorcerers often deal more damage buffing the GWM and SS fighters/warrior types than casting actual spells. Twin a haste or greater invisibility (or even untwinned).
Question I hope someone can help me with. One thing I've noticed (correct me if I'm wrong) is that optimizers like to play with other optimizers, for the most part. Which makes sense, because there's a synergy of playstyle there. So I assume the DMs for optimized groups are also favorable to the optimizer playstyle.
However...
I get the impression that DMs aren't allowed to follow the same rules that the players do. The DM is supposed to be limited to RAW only, and that doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Why can't humanoids wear better armor and weapons? Why can't a war like race such as orcs have solid tactics in battle, with a phalanx front line and back row with ranged weapons and pots of flaming oil? Why can't the ogre use its brute strength to grapple and restrain a PC while its goblin allies riddle it with attacks made at advantage?
If players like to look for the most mechanically optimized builds (which is fine), why can't the DM do the same? It seems to me that that would be the most ideal situation because it lets everyone who likes to play like that play like that (not just the players). It would also seem to eliminate a lot of these types of threads, where people seem to complain about how the game is broken based on the players optimizing and/or using loopholes while the DM is handcuffed.
Way better than me "at single-target damage". I would assume that's obvious from the subject we're talking about. Everything I was talking about was on the topic of single target damage.
Trying to judge characters based purely on damage is so obviously a fool's errand I don't why you would assume anyone would be thinking that.