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

[Corpsetaker]

From my own personal perspective I don't even worry about being in the spotlight. I don't like games that are designed for each and every person to shine like it's my queue in a play.

I am there to play my character and have him interact with the world around him, or her. I'm not worried about time distribution amongst the players.

I just play my character and have fun doing it. My character is not measured by how much damage he does or how useful he can be.

 

[Psikerlord#]

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?

Personally I feel all PCs should be in the same damage ballpark, regardless of out of combat utility. I want every Pc to have the capacity to do moderate to high damage. Sure, some PCs will do more consistently do high damage, but I loathe the "striker" role of 4e. I do not want only some PCs doing super high damage all the time. Happily, if you remove the -5/+10 mechanic from GWM and SS, there are no true "strikers" in 5e.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Personally I feel all PCs should be in the same damage ballpark, regardless of out of combat utility. I want every Pc to have the capacity to do moderate to high damage. Sure, some PCs will do more consistently do high damage, but I loathe the "striker" role of 4e. I do not want only some PCs doing super high damage all the time. Happily, if you remove the -5/+10 mechanic from GWM and SS, there are no true "strikers" in 5e.

If every class has to be fairly equal in combat then every class has to be fairly equal out of combat as well. Then we have a single class -adventurer, that does everything reasonably well. Fair but boring as all get up.

No, every class does not have to contribute equally in combat.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Personally I feel all PCs should be in the same damage ballpark, regardless of out of combat utility. I want every Pc to have the capacity to do moderate to high damage. Sure, some PCs will do more consistently do high damage, but I loathe the "striker" role of 4e. I do not want only some PCs doing super high damage all the time. Happily, if you remove the -5/+10 mechanic from GWM and SS, there are no true "strikers" in 5e.

Yes there are. Sorlocks, or high-level fighters with the Magic Initiate feat and Hex, do damage that is competitive with Sharpshooter against e.g. AC 18 Fire Giants. The primary difference is that Sharpshooter has better range than Hex. A 20th level Action Surging Archery-based Dex 20 fighter can expect to do 86.4 damage in one round against a Fire Giant; using Sharpshooter he would do 87.6.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

If every class has to be fairly equal in combat then every class has to be fairly equal out of combat as well. Then we have a single class -adventurer, that does everything reasonably well. Fair but boring as all get up.

They could be distinct yet equal, out of combat. You could have one character that is very good with traps and locks, and another character who is very good with talking to people, and another character who knows a lot of lore, and another character who is good with wilderness stuff.

I'm of the belief that everyone should shine, both in and out of combat. Out of combat, each character should have a chance to shine alone. In combat, everyone can shine together.

 

[iserith]

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.

Basic Rules, page 2:

There’s no winning and losing in the Dungeons & Dragons game—at least, not the way those terms are usually understood. Together, the DM and the players create an exciting story of bold adventurers who confront deadly perils. Sometimes an adventurer might come to a grisly end, torn apart by ferocious monsters or done in by a nefarious villain. Even so, the other adventurers can search for powerful magic to revive their fallen comrade, or the player might choose to create a new character to carry on. The group might fail to complete an adventure successfully, but if everyone had a good time and created a memorable story, they all win.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

I just want to say that whether or not he's good, I want to see this Sorcerer/Monk/Ranger in play.

 

[Jester David]

Basic Rules, page 2:

There’s no winning and losing in the Dungeons & Dragons game—at least, not the way those terms are usually understood. Together, the DM and the players create an exciting story of bold adventurers who confront deadly perils. Sometimes an adventurer might come to a grisly end, torn apart by ferocious monsters or done in by a nefarious villain. Even so, the other adventurers can search for powerful magic to revive their fallen comrade, or the player might choose to create a new character to carry on. The group might fail to complete an adventure successfully, but if everyone had a good time and created a memorable story, they all win.

Hey, don't shoot the messenger.

 

[Tony Vargas]

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).

Your understanding is perhaps a tad naive or, maybe just optimistic, but yes, the idea in 5e is that the classes are meant to be distinct, evocative, and fun - and a starting point that the DM should feel free to mod/ban/add-to/etc - not a tightly-balanced set of equivalent options.

If you find one class better than others, play that class. Simple.

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).

It's just easy to calculate. In the combat pillar, DPR can be seen as a less 'situational' capability than others, even if those others might sometimes swing a combat, or just be really cool/dramatic/fun now and then.

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?

No, your disequilibrium is because missed 3.x/Pathfinder, that was the height of the player-empowerment, builds, RAW (Rules As Written) obsession and optimization.

Of course, you can optimize in any game, (people even did in 2e and earlier, just not so formally and with fewer tools, with 'gaming the DM' perhaps being the most critical form of powergaming), and people did bring that 3.x mentality forward into Pathfinder (which embraced it), 4e (in spite of it being fairly well-balanced), and 5e (in spite of it's more classic-D&D style).

Anyway, if you ignore the naysayers, you should find returning to D&D with 5e after last enjoying 2e an easy, comfortable, and rewarding transition. Welcome back, and enjoy your D&D.

 

[Psikerlord#]

Yes there are. Sorlocks, or high-level fighters with the Magic Initiate feat and Hex, do damage that is competitive with Sharpshooter against e.g. AC 18 Fire Giants. The primary difference is that Sharpshooter has better range than Hex. A 20th level Action Surging Archery-based Dex 20 fighter can expect to do 86.4 damage in one round against a Fire Giant; using Sharpshooter he would do 87.6.

I dont allow multiclassing for the same reason. As for high level fighters with magic initiate hex etc... that is a once per day spell, no issue with that.