Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="The Crimson Binome" data-source="post: 6959047" data-attributes="member: 6775031">That might be true in theory - there might theoretically be a &quot;best&quot; damage type in 5E - but in practice it's going to depend a lot on what monsters you happen to come across. In the game I ran, the warlock was perfectly happy with his combination of eldritch blast and fireball, until they had an encounter with some Helmed Horrors who were immune to every attack he had except for his dagger. I'm not saying that the DM should specifically target the weaknesses of the PCs in order to contrive some balance in the damage types - the game shouldn't need the DM to resort to such measures - but you never really know what you're going to come across. It doesn't matter if half of the monsters in the manual are resistant to fire damage, if that half never shows up in the game. And if you are also fire resistant, then maybe you don't really care about fire-type enemies as much, since they aren't as much of a threat to you.That's pretty much why class-based systems are interesting. Even if there was only one single best fighter build for every situation, the best fighter will always be different from the best thief and the best wizard, so there will always be that one single choice that is incredibly meaningful throughout the entire game.The problem with class-based systems is that they're fundamentally opposed to customization. The more choices you have to make, the less weight is carried by each individual choice, and the lines of distinction begin to get blurry. A fighter may be a defender while a ranger is a striker, but if you give that fighter a big sword instead of a shield, then it starts to look a lot more like a striker than a defender; and your choice to play a defender class rather than a striker class is relatively less meaningful.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="The Crimson Binome, post: 6959047, member: 6775031"] That might be true in theory - there might theoretically be a "best" damage type in 5E - but in practice it's going to depend a lot on what monsters you happen to come across. In the game I ran, the warlock was perfectly happy with his combination of eldritch blast and fireball, until they had an encounter with some Helmed Horrors who were immune to every attack he had except for his dagger. I'm not saying that the DM should specifically target the weaknesses of the PCs in order to contrive some balance in the damage types - the game shouldn't [I]need[/I] the DM to resort to such measures - but you never really know what you're going to come across. It doesn't matter if half of the monsters in the manual are resistant to fire damage, if that half never shows up in the game. And if you are also fire resistant, then maybe you don't really care about fire-type enemies as much, since they aren't as much of a threat to you. That's pretty much why class-based systems are interesting. Even if there was only one single best fighter build for every situation, the best fighter will always be different from the best thief and the best wizard, so there will always be that one single choice that is incredibly meaningful throughout the entire game. The problem with class-based systems is that they're fundamentally opposed to customization. The more choices you have to make, the less weight is carried by each individual choice, and the lines of distinction begin to get blurry. A fighter may be a defender while a ranger is a striker, but if you give that fighter a big sword instead of a shield, then it starts to look a lot more like a striker than a defender; and your choice to play a defender class rather than a striker class is relatively less meaningful. [/QUOTE]

Verification