D&D General DPR Calculations Wut?

[Mecheon]

Social not only matters, but it's far more powerful than combat abilities. A combat ginsu machine might be able to solo kill something 123 CRs above his level, but the social PC can move armies and nations.

The thing is though, 90% of D&D's mechanics are combat. There's no specific social or exploration rules outside of the vague 'high roll = good'. There's no social or exploration game to play or build towards.

The social character could move nations. Orr the DM could say 'yeah no', and the build becomes pointless. Damage, though? That's raw, coded into the system, and chances are in a campaign, you're going to face situations where that comes up. Making sure your class is going to handle what most of the game's mechanics and rules are there to deal with should be a priority

 

[Maxperson]

The thing is though, 90% of D&D's mechanics are combat. There's no specific social or exploration rules outside of the vague 'high roll = good'. There's no social or exploration game to play or build towards.

There are social/exploration spells and abilities as well. And there are rules for traps, hazards, and such that are part of exploration. It's not entirely roll high = good.

The social character could move nations. Orr the DM could say 'yeah no', and the build becomes pointless. Damage, though? That's raw, coded into the system, and chances are in a campaign, you're going to face situations where that comes up. Making sure your class is going to handle what most of the game's mechanics and rules are there to deal with should be a priority

The same kind of DM who would just arbitrarily shut down social situations will do the same to combat by fudging to win, throwing unwinnable encounters, etc. at the party. If we're going to go with some DMs are bad, it applies across the board. Combat isn't an exception.

 

[Zardnaar]

Versatility is also power. It's just a different kind of power.

It is but theres better options.

 

[Zardnaar]

There are social/exploration spells and abilities as well. And there are rules for traps, hazards, and such that are part of exploration. It's not entirely roll high = good.

The same kind of DM who would just arbitrarily shut down social situations will do the same to combat by fudging to win, throwing unwinnable encounters, etc. at the party. If we're going to go with some DMs are bad, it applies across the board. Combat isn't an exception.

Combats more objective though.

Its not even combat as the class abilities also are non combat. On most classes anyway.

But when ones talking about class rating mechanics thats what we are rating.

I'm not rating DM I dont know. Im not rating your DM. Is not what we are talking about.

And multiclassing isnt usually included. To many variables. Maybe fighter 3/bard3 is great in your campaign. Its a fairly weak build overall.

 

[Mecheon]

There are social/exploration spells and abilities as well. And there are rules for traps, hazards, and such that are part of exploration. It's not entirely roll high = good.

The exploration spells tend to be high enough in potency to disregard checks, and likewise the social spells tend to be a 'win one check but face consequences' nature. Its ultimately just roll high = win

Traps exist, sure, but not with high enough frequency to build a character just for traps.

The same kind of DM who would just arbitrarily shut down social situations will do the same to combat by fudging to win, throwing unwinnable encounters, etc. at the party. If we're going to go with some DMs are bad, it applies across the board. Combat isn't an exception.

You just as easily have an NPC go "Yeah that is not feasible" to any request, even if they like you. Or the campaign's set in somewhere where there's no people for you to be social with. You can't exactly talk to your average skeleton or slime, after all.

Combat, though? That's what the vast majority of the game's rules are. Most of the rulebook is about combat and how the classes interact with it, whereas there's nothing on the social side. So, anyone just looking at the game is going to factor combat in as a larger factor

 

[Maxperson]

And multiclassing isnt usually included. To many variables. Maybe fighter 3/bard3 is great in your campaign. Its a fairly weak build overall.

In a white room, sure. As you say, there are too many variables, which makes it impossible to accurately rate for actual game play.

 

[Maxperson]

The exploration spells tend to be high enough in potency to disregard checks, and likewise the social spells tend to be a 'win one check but face consequences' nature. Its ultimately just roll high = win

If that's your argument, combat is also ultimately, "roll high = win." Roll high = win isn't a good argument to counter anything I'm saying as it applies to your arguments as well.

Traps exist, sure, but not with high enough frequency to build a character just for traps.

This is very campaign dependent.

You just as easily have an NPC go "Yeah that is not feasible" to any request, even if they like you. Or the campaign's set in somewhere where there's no people for you to be social with. You can't exactly talk to your average skeleton or slime, after all.

Combat, though? That's what the vast majority of the game's rules are. Most of the rulebook is about combat and how the classes interact with it, whereas there's nothing on the social side. So, anyone just looking at the game is going to factor combat in as a larger factor

Nah. I can just as easily go, "The dragon eats you" as I can go, "Yeah that's not feasible" to any request. Bad DMs are bad.

 

[Maxperson]

It is but theres better options.

In your personal opinion. Not as any sort of objective measure. Which versatility options are best is subjective.

 

[Zardnaar]

In your personal opinion. Not as any sort of objective measure. Which versatility options are best is subjective.

Sure its moving the goal posts though when we are specifically talking about class based power.

Maybe your 3/3 build s all that. Its probably not let's be honest you're also missing feat at 4. Youre not that versatile and im sure one could make a better MC.

Everything's subjective up to a point. Ones ability to identify "the good stuff" is going to be better regarded than Billy bob's opinion thinking 5.0 witch bolts a good spell.

 

[Mecheon]

If that's your argument, combat is also ultimately, "roll high = win." Roll high = win isn't a good argument to counter anything I'm saying as it applies to your arguments as well.

One's 'roll high and the specific rules of the game will determine', the other's 'roll high and go "DM may I?"'.

One you gamble with, the other is guaranteed to at least do something.

This is very campaign dependent.

Ultimately, yeah. But in the long run of it? "Your character can do damage" will handle problems in just about every type of campaign, whereas social builds. That's why people value that side of things so highly

And, well, in the scheme of it, when it comes to combat? That's the long dice-rolling side of it, so most people are going to build to be built for the meat and potatoes of a campaign. That meat and potatoes is going to be the combat, simply due to D&D being, well. D&D.

Nah. I can just as easily go, "The dragon eats you" as I can go, "Yeah that's not feasible" to any request. Bad DMs are bad.

And then you can point at the rules and say 'nope'. You have no such defense when you're gambling on social skills

A DM not wanting to bother with social stuff and whatever zany ass scheme where your character insists to them that they're actually the moon with some 3E-esque cheese doesn't make them a bad DM